Misinformation is endangering lives. It’s time for science—not stigma—to lead tobacco control into a future rooted in harm reduction.
As the global debate over tobacco control intensifies, a new wave of scientific evidence is challenging outdated narratives—and urging public health leaders to catch up. At the heart of the conversation is the role of safer nicotine alternatives, like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, as to whether they are helping smokers quit, or addict a whole new generation to nicotine. While millions of smokers are successfully switching to these tools, misleading research and regulatory resistance continue to cloud the path forward.
Flawed science informs flawed policy
A recent critique by renowned researchers in the field Brad Rodu, Nantaporn Plurphanswat, and Jordan Rodu, has exposed major issues in one of the most widely cited meta-analyses used to argue against vaping. The study in question, conducted by Glantz et al., claimed that vapers face health risks comparable to traditional smokers—a conclusion that has been widely referred to in public debates and policymaking.
However, the Rodu-led team has found that the meta-analysis is riddled with serious flaws. Firstly, it lumped together vastly different health outcomes—such as erectile dysfunction and fatal cardiovascular disease—under the same umbrella of “vaping-related illness,” blurring any meaningful distinctions in risk. Secondly, it relied on cross-sectional surveys that lacked clear timelines between when individuals began vaping and when they were diagnosed with diseases, making causal inference impossible. Moreover, some of the longitudinal studies cited, failed to track changes in participants’ smoking or vaping behavior over time, undermining their relevance.
In short, the researchers concluded that Glantz’s meta-analysis failed to meet basic scientific standards and should not be used to inform tobacco policy. And sadly, this kind of misinformation coming from Glantz is not an isolated case—he is renowned for publishing innacurate anti-vaping material. In response, his peers have consistently highlighted that misinformation, however well-intentioned, can have dangerous consequences—especially when it obscures the benefits of harm reduction.
95% safer, but still banned – the vaping paradox
This criticism comes as the World Vapers Alliance (WVA) releases a powerful new policy report urging the World Health Organization (WHO) to modernize its approach. Published on the 20th anniversary of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the report argues that the treaty’s stubborn resistance to harm reduction has slowed progress—and may have cost millions of lives.
Rather than treating all nicotine products as equally dangerous, the WVA calls for a risk-proportionate strategy. That means regulating based on scientific evidence, not moral panic. The report lays out 20 key lessons learned over the past two decades, highlighting how products like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches can accelerate the end of smoking if given a fair chance.
One of the report’s strongest points comes from longstanding research by Public Health England, which finds that vaping delivers at least 95% fewer toxic substances than combustible cigarettes. Additionally, a 2023 Cochrane Review concluded that vapes are nearly twice as effective as traditional nicotine replacement therapies like patches or gum in helping adults quit smoking.
Similarly, the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) has issued a powerful statement condemning the widespread misinformation surrounding safer nicotine alternatives like vaping. The group argues that persistent anti-vaping propaganda—often spread by influential health organizations such as the WHO—is causing real harm by discouraging smokers from switching to significantly less harmful options.
Sweden: a model for the world
Meanwhile, Sweden stands out as a success story in the realm of tobacco harm reduction. Thanks to the widespread availability of reduced-risk products like snus, nicotine pouches, and e-cigarettes, the country has nearly eliminated daily smoking, now reporting rates close to 5%. This figure meets the EU’s official threshold for a “smoke-free” society and is significantly lower than the Union’s average.
Crucially, this shift has not come at the expense of public health—quite the opposite. Sweden also boasts some of the lowest rates of tobacco-related diseases in the EU, underscoring how harm reduction can lead to tangible health outcomes when embraced at a national level.
Other countries like the UK and New Zealand, which have adopted similarly pragmatic approaches, are also seeing impressive reductions in smoking rates. This trend should be a wake-up call to nations still clinging to abstinence-only policies.
Misguided bans, missed opportunities
Despite this mounting evidence, some governments continue to double down on restrictive regulations. Canada has banned all flavoured nicotine pouches except mint and menthol and limited their sale to pharmacies, effectively restricting adult access while failing to stem the rise of illicit markets online. Australia has similarly restricted vape sales to pharmacies solely via prescription, giving rise not only to a thriving black market, but a fully fledged criminal network leading to turf wars.
It has become evident that this kind of approach risks undoing the progress made in smoking cessation. Flavour bans, excessive taxes, and outright prohibitions don’t make nicotine use disappear—they just push consumers back toward more dangerous options or into unregulated markets. The science is clear. The evidence is growing. It’s time for the world’s public health leaders to catch up—and stop letting flawed research and outdated ideology get in the way of progress.